On Being a Scientist will provide you with an overview of scientific practice, what it means to be a scientist and allows you to become acquainted with academic conduct, thus meeting a demand for increased awareness in scientific integrity.
This course is designed to inform you on topics as scientific integrity and social responsibilities of scientists.
Broad questions, which are inseparably linked to these topics are discussed: namely regarding the nature of science and the societal role it fulfills.
Course objectives:
After this course you will:
1) Understand the basic principles of science, and know what is "not done".
2) Have a realistic image of science and scientists.
3) Recognize integrity dilemmas, know how to respond in clear cases, and have the skills to respond prudently in unclear cases.
4) Know and understand the differences and similarities of various disciplines.
5) Have a basic understanding of the role of science in society, realise your own societal responsibilities, and are able to take a position in societal issues where science plays a role.
The course consists of a feature film, supported by short lectures, set to serve as a starting point for the discussions and assignments.

Преподаватели

Bas Haring

Prof.dr.

Frans van Lunteren

Prof. dr.

Текст видео

Professor Ponta? Yes? If I run the STAS2 analysis, I only get a weak correlation. Very significant, but if I take the data through CU3, I get this result. Then the CU3 is what you need, right? Otherwise, you've got nothing. No. Use a CU3 analysis. But. There are 28 tests to process these data and for sure they will all give you useful results. So? So, you choose the CU3 and forget about the rest. If you base your conclusions on all the data sets and all the resulting analysis, you will never get anywhere. You know your final outcome is correct. Yes. This is the scientific method. You don't need to show the results you don't need. Otherwise, we'd still be here in 10 years time. Your H index should be over 20 before the time your hair starts turning gray and with this rate you won't even finish your first publication. How do you think you'll graduate then? You need to pick up the pace and finish your paper. I need your brain for my research on protein diffusion. That's why you're here, okay? Polish your data. Everybody does it, and everybody knows that everybody does it. But don't tell anyone. Wow. Really good. Can I just say one thing? Yes. You should make a reservation, if you say here, "Despite accumulating correlative evidence supporting a neuroprotective roll of ERB57, the contribution of these full days to the physiology of the nervous system remains unknown." then you're fine, but this the only thing. This is really good, a masterpiece, seriously. What? Okay, well, Ponta says I have to ignore the outcome of certain tests. But that means I'm ignoring the majority of my test results. I can't do that. Yes, you can. He's right. That's how we've always done it. Nobody's forcing you to analyze your data using 28 different routines. You simply use the formulas that give the correct results. We used to call it a Ponter polish. Are you serious? Of course. What happened between you two? Well. Was it your idea? Yes. But. Listen, he was the group leader. He built that group. He was in charge and I, and I'm not bragging here, I had the inside. And now? What about now? What do you want? That prize should be awarded to both of us. Yeah, but that's a bit late after seven years. You think so?